Steve,
Here you go. I see that I had a typo in 3 people’s emails (Steve W., Brad and Jason) due to late night (tired) typos in the email addresses. Also, in looking at the summary document I noticed that my spellchecker had been disabled so there were typos in that document. So attached is a spell-checked document that I’m resending to everyone on the list. Since I wrote this way past midnight (Wednesday-Thursday) it may still have some typos because I haven’t had time to proof it carefully, so please overlook any that you see. The following document summarizes our discussion last Monday night and some things to be thinking about for our discussion next Monday night. 1 Discussion on the Development of Criteria by which to Evaluate the Plausibility Worldviews November 10, 2008 Introduction This document serves as a summary (sort of like minutes to the meeting) of the discussion held last Monday night. The individuals whose emails are listed below were present at the meeting: • Jason ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Liz (I’m sorry, I don’t know if I’m remembering her name correctly) [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Michael ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Debbie ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Steve W. ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Brad ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Noah ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Trace ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trace brought notes from Steve who was in England) • Steve E. – [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Ethridge began by: 1. Reviewing that, at the previous meeting, Chris had asked him to present his idea of having the group discuss and try to agree on a set of criteria by which the plausibility of various worldviews could be evaluated, recognizing that few conclusions reach the level of 100% certainty or certitude, but that we should be able to evaluate them using a cumulative case, in the same way that a courtroom makes decisions; i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 2. Confirming that this was still something that the group wanted to do, to which all were in agreement. Overview of the Process Having gained agreement to proceed, Steve then proposed a process for the discussion to follow, to which the group agreed. This process consisted of the following steps: 1. Brainstorm criteria. Brainstorming meant to just think about and suggest various criteria, at first, without (as much as possible) evaluating or criticizing the criteria themselves; evaluation was to be a later step in the process. It was acknowledged that during the brainstorming process, it would be necessary to define briefly what was meant by a criterion, but that the next stage would need to define them more clearly. 2 2. Define what is meant by each of the criteria in more complete, clear terms. This stage would involve more critical evaluation of the criteria. 3. Critically evaluate the defined criteria to reach consensus on which to keep. 4. Then, once the group reached a consensus on the criteria and their definitions, we would pick a worldview and submit it to the criteria, followed by the next world view, and so on, until all or most of the major ones have been evaluated. (Trace wisely suggested that we pick a “neutral” one as our first test case, to which the group agreed). Steve suggested that this process may take several weeks at each of these stages and that the whole process may take months. Everyone seemed to agree that as long as the discussion was fruitful we would continue. Having gained agreement from the group on this process, Steve then presented a few, minimal, assumptions that such a discussion implies, to see if the group could agree to hold to these assumptions. These assumptions were, in no particular order: 1. That there is such a thing as truth. The group acknowledged that there are various types or approaches to truth and agreed not to get bogged down in those details at this point, but rather to simply agree that, yes, there is “such a thing as truth.” 2. That we are all honest, ethical, reasonable people and that the ethics of belief or adherence to a worldview obligate us to search for criteria (standards) by which to judge worldviews; i.e., standards that can be used to discern the truth of a worldview. 3. That we should not rule out, a‐priori, the possibility that there could be more than one valid worldview. Although we may end up concluding that there is only one valid worldview, our process is to give a “fair hearing” to all of them (again, as in a courtroom). This requires us to evaluate the belief‐worthiness of the various worldviews as objectively as possible, meaning that we each have to temporarily suspend our own presuppositional bias toward our own personally held worldview for purposes of this discussion. Not that we’re giving up our acceptance of that world view in our own minds but rather that we, as much as possible, acknowledge our own biases and try to hold them in suspension. Having gained agreement on these basic assumptions, we then began the brainstorming process. What follows is a listing of criteria that were suggested by the group during the brainstorming session. Brainstormed Criteria These are verbatim comments that I wrote down in my notes as each one was mentioned. These are numbered below in the order that they came up in the discussion. These numbers 3 are referred to later in this document for reference. As you read these you may recognize that some of the criteria, themselves, have worldview implications or presuppositions, but remember that the evaluation of these comes later. You will also notice that there may be some redundancy or overlap among some of the suggested criteria. 1. The Bible is truth. 2. Empirical 3. Correspondence/fit/correlation with our experience/the real world 4. Explanatory – worldview seems to be capable of explaining all experience or, where it isn’t, the world view admits that some other worldview covers another area. 5. It can’t violate something that takes our own experience to grasp. 6. Logic – an argument offered as evidence must be sound. Conclusion must follow unavoidably from premises which must be true. 7. Falsifiable – possible to think of evidence to prove false 8. Comprehensiveness ‐‐ the scope and range of the theory in terms of how allencompassing it is. Evidence must be exhaustible and all available must be considered. 9. Have honesty – evidence evaluated without self deception 10. Replicability – If evidence could be logically explained as coincidental it should be repeatable to same result. 11. Sufficiency – (1) burden of proof rests on the claimant; (2) extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence; (2) hearsay evidence is always inadequate. 12. To have honestly looked at other peoples’ view points. 13. The statement has to be free of alterior motives, such as wealth, personal gain, to support a particular secular or religious ideology. 14. Objective – tangible, verifiable, evidence. 15. Independent confirmation of the statement from other groups. 16. Important that it does not deny subjective experience. 17. Stand up to reasonable attacks by multiple independent groups. 18. Parsimony – simplicity provided that the world view has equal explanatory power. The theory or worldview has certain leanness to it, while still having sufficient insight or explanatory power. 19. No appeal to an authority figure. Reality is the ultimate authority. 20. Consistency ‐‐ the necessary condition that any two essential statements within the worldview that are necessary for adherence to the worldview are broadly and logically possible, taken together with respect to one another 21. Coherence – a system of beliefs, claims or statements must stick together and offer mutual support to one another without difficulty 22. Livability ‐‐ the property of being able to live one’s life with success and with at least a bit of happiness and hope (i.e., the test of which worldview is easier to believe, trust in, hope for or live by). (Note: This is a pragmatic criterion, not in the utilitarian sense of the pragmatic theory of truth [i.e., it’s true because it works] but rather in the different sense that it works because it is true.) 4 23. Predictability ‐‐ the ability of the theory/worldview to accurately predict future occurrences. 24. Fruitfulness – the test of how well the theory/worldview helps you to create new hypotheses which extends our knowledge of the natural world, of human beings, etc. These, without yet being critiqued, were the criteria that resulted from our brain storming session. The next part of our discussion was to begin to define the criteria better. In doing this, we acknowledged that many of these ideas, as listed, had overlapping meaning and that our goal should be to develop a short list of criteria (maybe 6 to 12) so that the process of evaluating worldviews against the criteria doesn’t become too unwieldy. We also recognized that it was difficult to define criteria without critiquing them and difficult to critique criteria without defining them. So we agreed to discuss how we might simultaneously categorize these criteria as a way of helping to define them and to critique them in the process. The next section is the result of that discussion. Definition and Critique of the Criteria The following were some major points of discussion before the group agreed to a shorter (categorized, better defined) list of criteria: • The question was raised as to, when it comes to the criteria of correspondence or fit with the real world, what types of data (e.g., scientific or philosophical disciplines) this criteria should entail. It was agreed that cosmology, astronomy, archeology, and history (subject to further discussion about how to evaluate historical data), at a minimum, would all be valid to consider. (Others may still later need to be added to this list). • The concern was raised that some of the criteria suggested during the brainstorming (e.g., empirical, verification, the Bible is truth) were, themselves, worldviews and should be eliminated. It was acknowledged that, yes, if taken to the extreme ‐‐ for example, if by “verification” we mean the verification principle that there is no meaning outside of that which cannot be verified by one of the five senses ‐‐ then, it is a worldview. But that is not the same as saying the ability to verify some aspect of a worldview is one of many criteria to be used in weighing the cumulative case to conclude whether it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., not that everything within the worldview must be verifiable). In this portion of the discussion we agreed that it is important to put all of our biases and presuppositions on “common ground.” This means, for example, that the conclusion, “the Bible is truth,” and by logical extension, all other conclusions about ultimate truth (e.g., empiricism is the only way to know truth, 5 or rationalism is the only way to know truth) should be suspended until a worldview has been evaluated by the criteria. After all, such conclusions are what we can reasonably state only after having agreed on the criteria and having evaluated worldviews against those criteria. In other words, the question is, regarding any such conclusion, whether there is enough cumulative weight on the set of criteria, taken as a whole, to warrant adherence to that particular worldview.1 This discussion also led to the acknowledgement that our various biases are unavoidable in such discussions so we should all be alert to our own and others’ biases and politely and respectfully hold each other accountable to remaining objective during the process. • The group discussed the suggested criteria of replicability (# 10) and decided that not all aspects of a worldview are necessarily repeatable, and we agreed that the criterion of predictability (of future events) sufficiently encompasses that idea. • We discussed and agreed that “hearsay evidence” (second hand word‐of‐ mouth) is not the same as first hand “testimony,” so we eliminated that as a criteria ‐‐ but, with the understanding that testimony itself needs to be critically evaluated based on the subcriteria of: two or more witnesses, the credibility of the witness in terms of how close in time and proximity the witness was to the event testified about, and the reliability of the witness. • We agreed that the proposed criteria of “to have honestly looked at other people’s viewpoints” (#12) is a part of this whole process rather than a criteria itself so, for this reason, this was eliminated as a criteria. • We had much discussion about the criteria of “that it does not deny subjective experience” (#16) and “livability” (#22), recognizing that these were highly subjective. But, after much discussion we all agreed to keep “livability” as a criterion so long as we keep in mind the subjectivity of this criterion. • Regarding the suggested criteria of “logic,” (#6), we discussed and agreed that there are different types of logic (e.g., propositional, logical consistency/not contradictory on essential points necessary to warrant belief, formal logic, informal logic) and that, therefore, this criteria was a sub‐component of the criteria of “consistency” (#20). 1 My own comments here: (a) In other words, this process is an inductive one of discovery, not a deductive one of presuppositional dogmatism for any worldview; (b) this should not mean that we cannot study the Bible to assess whether something, including the Bible itself, is true, just as it should not mean that we cannot attempt to verify something through one of our five senses to assess whether it is true. But it does mean that we should not to begin with that presupposition as a starting point for purposes of our discussion. 6 Through these and other less substantive points of discussion, we agreed, tentatively, for further discussion at our next meeting, to collapse the brain‐stormed criteria into the following definitional categories. Criteria After much discussion we agreed (tentatively) that the all of the many criteria that were suggested during our brainstorming session could be categorized into the following seven criteria. 1. Correspondence/fit to the real world (#3). We agreed that this criteria encompasses the following that were suggested: a. Empirical (#2 and #5) b. Falsifiable (#7) c. Stands up to critique from multiple independent groups (#17) d. Independent confirmation of the statement from other groups (#15) e. No appeal to authority figure (#19)2 f. Objective/unbiased, verifiable, free from alterior motives (# 14, #13)3 g. Sufficiency (#11) h. No appeal to authority (#19) The definition of this one, again, is that the worldview corresponds with our experience/the real world. 2. Comprehensiveness (#21). This one encompasses the suggested criteria of explanatory power (#4). The criterion of comprehensiveness is defined as how all‐ encompassing the theory/worldview is. 3. Consistency (#20). We agreed that this criterion encompassed the criteria of logic (#6). The definition of this one, again, is that any two statements within the worldview that are necessary for adherence to the worldview are broadly and logically possible, taken together with respect to one another. 2 Just my own observation here for further discussion: it seems to me, that “independent confirmation of the statement from other groups (#15) and “no appeal to authority figure” (#19) are logically contradictory. I propose that we eliminate these two elements from the category of correspondence. By the same token, it seems to me that “stands up to critique from multiple independent groups” (#17) is an appeal to authority and should therefore also be eliminated. 3 In my notes I had Objectivity/Unbiased both as an element of the criterion of correspondence and as a separate criterion from this stage in the discussion. For discussion purposes in our next meeting, I am leaving it only as an element of correspondence. The reason is that, after considering this further, it seemed to me that it was similar to the one about having “honesty – evidence evaluated without self deception” (#9) and we’re striving to arrive at a short list. If anyone feels differently about this we can discuss this further at our next meeting. 7 4. Coherence (#21). The definition of this one, again, is that a system of beliefs, claims, or statements must stick together and offer mutual support to one another without difficulty. 5. Predictability (#23) – We agreed that this one encompasses replicability (#10). Its definition, again, is the ability of the theory/worldview to accurately predict future occurrences. 6. Simplicity (#18). The definition of this one, again, is that the theory/worldview has a leanness to it, while still having sufficient insight or explanatory power. 7. Livability (#22) – With the caveat for all of us to keep in mind that this one is perhaps more subjective than the others, we all agreed to keep this. This is defined, again, as property of being able to live one’s life with success and with at least a bit of happiness and hope (i.e., the test of which worldview is easier to believe, trust in, hope for or live by). As you can see, these seven criteria encompass all 24 of the suggested criteria that resulted from our brainstorming session, with the exception of the criteria of fruitfulness (#24) (defined as how well the theory/worldview helps you to create new hypotheses which extend our knowledge of the natural world, human beings, etc.) It may have just been an oversight from my notes, but I would like to propose that we keep the criteria of “fruitfulness” (#24) as well, which would give us 8 total criteria. Next Steps 1. We agreed that our task between now and next week would be to think about these further so that next week we can hopefully gain final consensus on our criteria. 2. We also discussed and agreed, tentatively, that when we reach consensus about our criteria we would pick, as our first, neutral worldview test case, the worldview of pantheism, but that may still be a few weeks away. 3. I would also like to propose that between now and next week that we begin to think about (and be prepared to discuss next week) a list of questions that we can ask as way of applying the criteria of comprehensiveness (which includes explanatory power). In other words, what would a reasonably warranted worldview have to explain in order to be comprehensive? I look forward to seeing you all next week. Steve Ethridge 331‐70267 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please review this and make sure that you agree that I’ve captured the essentials from our discussion accurately and adequately. Our first task next week will be to review the attached tentative criteria for evaluating the plausibility of a worldview with the goal of finalizing our list of criteria. I look forward to seeing you next Monday. Cheers, Steve On Nov 13, 5:00 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve, With the modifications it would appear that we are essentially > in agreement. I would like to add something though; one thing that > makes an expert witness more credible is when they are able to make > simplified but acurate explanations of how they arrive at certain > conclusions. For example if an archeloogist claims that a room that > has been dug up near the Dead Sea was used for writing scriptures, > then I would like to hear why he or she has come to this conslusion. I > would also like to hear arguments against this conclusion presented by > other experts who hold different views. If no experts hold other views > then I would still like to hear other opinions and explanations. > Occaisionally the odd opinion comes from an expert in the making. > > On Nov 13, 4:58 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Michael and All, > > > So long as we define appeal to authority as you have, i.e., "to take > > someone's word because they are deemed an expert in the area, without > > verifying a claim yourself," I agree with this, but with one caveat: > > It will not always be possible to verify something independently if we > > don't have the primary data in hand, or if we don't' have the > > educational prerequisites in a particular field. By your definition > > and example it sounds to me like you mean "no appeal to a single > > authority," without credible and corroborating evidence from other > > unbiased "authorities." If that's what you mean, then I can agree with > > it. > > > Remembering that our paradigm for judging between worldviews is the > > courtroom and the cumulative case of beyond a reasonable doubt, we > > should also keep in mind that courtrooms often bring in expert > > witnesses. The character, motivations, qualifications, biases, and > > arguments of those expert witnesses must also be evaluated as to their > > credibility. So, in the end, I agree that the two statements which I > > thought were contradictory are not so if we clarify the definitions of > > them as follows: (1) "no appeal to a single authority" and (2) > > "independent confirmation from other credible authorities, who, > > themselves present valid, verifiable evidence." In other words, we > > would not allow an appeal to a single authority and we would want to > > see independent confirmation from other credible authorities based on > > their valid, verifiable evidence. > > > I think we're essentially in agreement on this basis. What do you > > think? > > > Steve > > > On Nov 13, 4:56 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Steve and All, > > > > On page 6 you have foot note #2 at the bottom that reads: > > > > 2 Just my own observation here for further discussion: it seems to me, > > > that "independent confirmation of the > > > > statement from other groups (#15) and "no appeal to authority > > > figure" (#19) are logically contradictory. I propose > > > > that we eliminate these two elements from the category of > > > correspondence. By the same token, it seems to me > > > > that "stands up to critique from multiple independent groups" (#17) is > > > an appeal to authority and should therefore > > > > also be eliminated. > > > > I do not agree with you that independent verification and appeal to > > > authority, as typically meant, are contradictory. I think that appeal > > > to authority means to take someone's word because they are deemed an > > > expert in the area, without verifying a claim yourself. On the other > > > hand, I will give an example of independent verification that in my > > > mind increases the chances of a statement being true. Imagine two > > > people who are in a dark restaurant and each one can barely read the > > > menu. One reads the price of a certain entree and without telling the > > > other asks them what they read. If they come to the same in answer in > > > this case, the first person is more likely to be right then if the > > > second person has a different answer (though in this case the first > > > person could still be right). Do you agree and does this explain my > > > point satisfactorily? > > > > On Nov 13, 4:53 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Discussion on the Development of Criteria by which to Evaluate > > > > the Plausability Worldviews > > > > November 10, 2008 > > > > Introduction > > > > This document serves as a summary (sort of like minutes to the > > > > meeting) of the discussion held > > > > last Monday night. The indivuals whose emails are listed below were > > > > present at the meeting: > > > > * Jason ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Liz (I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm remembering her name correctly) > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Michael ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Debbie ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Steve W. ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Brad ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Noah ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Trace ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trace brought notes from Steve who > > > > was in England) > > > > * Steve E. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Steve Ethridge began by: > > > > 1. Reviewing that, at the previous meeting, Chris had asked him to > > > > present his idea of > > > > having the group discuss and try to agree on a set of criteria by > > > > which the plausibility of > > > > various worldviews could be evaluated, recognizing that few > > > > conclusions reach the level > > > > of 100% certainty or certitude, but that we should be able to evaulate > > > > them using a > > > > cumulative case, in the same way that a courtroom makes decisions; > > > > i.e., "beyond a > > > > reasonable doubt." > > > > 2. Confirming that this was still something that the group wanted to > > > > do, to which all were > > > > in agreement. > > > > Overview of the Process > > > > Having gained agreement to procede, Steve then proposed a process for > > > > the discussion to > > > > follow, to which the group agreed. This process consisted of the > > > > following steps: > > > > 1. Brainstorm criteria. Brainstorming meant to just think about and > > > > suggest various > > > > criteria, at first, without (as much as possible) evaulating or > > > > criticizing the criteria > > > > themselves; evaluation was to be a later step in the process. It was > > > > acknowledged that > > > > during the brainstorming process, it would be necessary to define > > > > briefly what was > > > > meant by a criterion, but that the next stage would need to define > > > > them more clearly. > > > > 2 > > > > 2. Define what is meant by each of the criteria in more complete, > > > > clear terms. This stage > > > > would involve more critical evaluation of the criteria. > > > > 3. Critically evaluate the defined criteria to reach consensus on > > > > which to keep. > > > > 4. Then, once the group reached a consensus on the criteria and their > > > > definitions, we > > > > would pick a worldview and subit it to the criteria, followed by the > > > > next world view, and > > > > so on, until all or most of the major ones have been evaluated. (Trace > > > > wisely suggested > > > > that we pick a "neutral" one as our first test case, to which the > > > > group agreed). > > > > Steve suggested that this process may take several weeks at each of > > > > these stages and that the > > > > whole process may take months. Everyone seemed to agree that as long > > > > as the discussion was > > > > fruitful we would continue. > > > > Having gained agreement from the group on this process, Steve then > > > > presented a few, minimal, > > > > assumptions that such a discussion implies, to see if the group could > > > > agree to hold to these > > > > assumptions. These assumptions were, in no particular order: > > > > 1. That there is such a thing as truth. The group acknowledged that > > > > there are various types > > > > or approaches to truth and agreed not to get bogged down in those > > > > details at this point, > > > > but rather to simply agree that, yes, there is "such a thing as > > > > truth." > > > > 2. That we are all honest, ethical, reasonable people and that the > > > > ethics of belief or > > > > adherence to a worldview obligate us to search for criteria > > > > (standards) by which to > > > > judge worldviews; i.e., standards that can be used to discern the > > > > truth of a worldview. > > > > 3. That we should not rule out, a‐priori, the possibility that there > > > > could be more than one > > > > valid worldview. Although we may end up concluding that there is only > > > > one valid > > > > worldview, our process is to give a "fair hearing" to all of them > > > > (again, as in a > > > > courtroom). This requires us to evaluate the belief‐worthiness of the > > > > various > > > > worldviews as objectively as possible, meaning that we each have to > > > > temporarily > > > > suspend our own presuppositional bias toward our own personally held > > > > worldview for > > > > purposes of this discussion. Not that we're giving up our acceptance > > > > of that world view > > > > in our own minds but rather that we, as much as possible, acknowledge > > > > our own biases > > > > and try to hold them in suspension. > > > > Having gained agreement on these basic assumptions, we then began the > > > > brainstorming > > > > process. What follows is a listing of criteria that were suggested by > > > > the group during the > > > > brainstormin session. > > > > Brainstormed Criteria > > > > These are verbatim comments that I wrote down in my notes as each one > > > > was mentioned. > > > > These are numbered below in the order that they came up in the > > > > disucssion. These numbers > > > > 3 > > > > are referred to later in this document for reference. As you read > > > > these you may recognize that > > > > some of the criteria, themselves, have worldview implications or > > > > presuppositions, but > > > > remember that the evaulation of these comes later. You will also > > > > notice that there may be > > > > some redundancy or overlap among some of the suggested criteria. > > > > 1. The Bible is truth. > > > > 2. Emperical > > > > 3.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
